Honestly like it or not the livery does just what AA wanted it to do. Stand out.

AA needs to look new, refreshed and completely different from their former selves. After all this is the "New" American Airlines. AA needs to forget their past, full of labor troubles, losses etc. and this livery is the perfect way to do it. But then again... Forgetting your past makes you doomed to repeat it....

Anyways IMO I like it. It's different, it's not very classy but I have to say that I can't wait to see swarms of these at airports, will be very interesting.

Ahh finally... the wait is over as I was so excited to see it!!! Hmmmm....uh.. uh...okay!

Wow... it takes me a while to understand what AA's new logo and livery looks like! It suits American Airlines colors and style but I cannot see how it suits to the airlines culture cos of tail. I understand it's what American Airlines want but their presentation looks okay.

1) I love that logo... very smart, creative and beautiful. It mixes with a star, A, eagle, tail, wings and red/white/blue cheatlines. Funny, it resembles old united airlines and greyhound logos but they arent 3D logo. It prefects to American Airlines and its airline culture. Font looks stylish, fresh and new. I like it too.

2) Look at the tail. It puzzles me.... It looks like it's difficult to make it cos it's shiny, cool and smart. The designers have been working so hard to create that metallic american flag. However, it doesnt match to AA's new logo and it's not a professional coporate identity. It doesn't seem right. That's my opinion.

It remindes me of Captain American's shield with lots of scratches.

Why? It has lots of white lines around the tail. For example: - When you scratches a car with a key, you could see white lines coming out of the paint. Therefore, That tail looks as if it has been scratched by the bad weather.

3) Grey color - Sorry, that color doesn't match to the aluminium color. Maybe try to make a little darker. Make it the same color as elephant color cos it's "huge". haha

4) Overall...aircraft - tail and livery don't match and don't make sense in coporate identity/graphic design. It's a big no no. It would be better to have a logo on the tail. It would look good.

Also, I still don't like Qantas new livery - with stylish kangaroo... haha

(Sorry I couldnt figure out how to reduce the photo size here as it's only a link).

So, finally the wait is over, and I have to admit, I’m not really surprised, many guessed a very similar treatment to the all new American Airlines livery, and many got it quite close. Now whilst the logo had been received to much fanfare, and much hype. I can’t help but feel utterly disappointed with their answer to an iconic look.

American has sported the same stunning livery for some 50 years, so in my eyes, it was going to have to take something iconic and powerful to replace it, however, they have created a dated look from the get-go. Let’s dissect it in more detail.

Meet the new steely-blue American, Not much changes with the logotype at first glance, and really, there have only been subtle changes, changing from a deep blue, changing the occasional shape and spacing to the letters, and instead softening it and obviously ‘modernising’ it. I have nothing bad to say about that, infact, it is quite refreshing, however they have created an icon to replace the eagle. Now if you watch the video they are touting on their website, they show the history of the logo, each one with an easily identifiable eagle. Jump ahead to this logo, which they state contains the eagle, and you’ll have to look a couple of times to see it. In essence, it is just two coloured blocks interrupted by a curved ‘thing’. Yes, it’s very clever, and will sit amongst the easily identifiable logos on apples logo quiz apps for years to come, but it doesn’t say anything about the airline, or what it stands for. If anything it reminds me heavily of the Mexicana logo.

A few problems arise from this logo, which they haven’t come close to solving yet either. In duo-tone, such as etched onto a glass or piece of cutlery, or embroidered onto an apron or uniform, or in black and white printing, the logo becomes even harder to understand, and will just look like two random slanted rectangles. Nothing is clever about that. Expect to see the word American and the logo always together on any consumables, never just one and not the other.

But, the piece de resistance, and the thorn in my side, has to be the tailfin. Whilst it is the most obvious tailfin ever, in my opinion, it stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the branding. The typeface, logo and even website makes the airline look like the ‘apple’ of airlines. However, this tailfin, makes it look like a charter airline for an American cruiseliner. They state that they want their look to reflect the ‘modern travel experience’ which they are putting on board, and this tailfin has to be a huge step backwards for them. In fact, it’s similar in concept to North American Airlines. My big pet peeve, is they had to make it more complicated than it had to be with several different stripes of blue being used. (An obvious nod to the idea of the stars of the american flag blurred by the speed it travels through the air)

I’m disappointed, as American, with all the management and brand power they have, have opted for a mismatched and in my opinion misaligned brand. American planes were iconic, classic and really gave a feeling of the heyday of glamorous travel. This new brand just sits them amongst the masses. Nothing stands out here, nothing is unique, or original. If this is the ‘future of travel’ then maybe I just need to buy a motorhome. I give the tail-fin a few years, before you will see the iconic and irreplaceable eagle, in some form, in all its glory once again.

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 1):Honestly like it or not the livery does just what AA wanted it to do. Stand out.

There's a difference between standing out because you're wearing a perfectly tailored Armani suit and standing out because you're one of the "people of wal-mart" who's suddenly in a crowd or normal people. This new livery isn't bad on that scale, but it isn't good either.

A classic, iconic scheme is gone, replaced by something that honestly looks like the charter airplane for the Harlem Globetrotters. That's fine, it may suit some people but it doesn't suit me, and if the airline likes it, so be it. I doubt it, but maybe it will grow on me.

What irks me beyond the loss of a great scheme of the past is the resources that went into this - the time, money, and effort that could have been better spent on getting the airline back into fighting shape, and they were resources that will be straight down the drain in five years when this very faddish livery is replaced by something else - because for sure this is not a scheme that's going to last another 45 years.

Let me be clear - I like AA, I want AA to succeed. But this was not money well spent.

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 1):AA needs to look new, refreshed and completely different from their former selves

unfortunately, nothing used in the branding and livery looks new, but adapted from previous logos and liveries (as mentioned, Greyhound, Family Airlines, Cubana, Air France, North American Airlines, Colgan air).

About the logo:
1) I like the new logo, but if you ask strangers on the street to identify the company based on the logo they might say: "greyhound"?...then you say: "no, is American Airlines....do you see the Eagle? do you see the "A"? do you see the "star?" ... they will say: "what A? What eagle? what star?"

2) Show then the old logo with the AA and eagle, and there is nothing to explain. It is uniquely American and easily identifiable. Why move away from that icon. They just need to modernize it in a way that is identifiable and doesnt need explanations or that it looks like some other company's logo.

About the tail:
as I mentioned, that "theme" is not used elsewhere in the branding on the livery or branding anywhere else. It simply says "here comes the "loud" "arrogant" "Ugly-American"... (a term sometimes used abroad to identify some american tourists). If that is the image AA wants to portrait abroad to bring additional revenue and reinvent itself, then, good luck!

I think they need a more classy-clever-modern livery that is more inviting and pleasing to the eyes.

Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 2):1) I love that logo... very smart, creative and beautiful. It mixes with a star, A, eagle, tail, wings and red/white/blue cheatlines. Funny, it resembles old united airlines and greyhound logos but they arent 3D logo. It prefects to American Airlines and its airline culture. Font looks stylish, fresh and new. I like it too.

Everyone keeps bringing up a star and I'm just not seeing it. Someone wanna help me out?

Its a paint job on an airplane.. Anyone buying/not buying a ticket because of this reason needs their head examined. I find it amusing at the obsession with a paint scheme. I would imagine a very small percentage of the flying public could acutally tell you the paint job on the last plane they flew.. And if they can, I would imagine none of them bought a ticket because of it.. Please, don't lose any sleep over this tonight!

Overall I like it. I would have loved it if they had done AA on the tail with the new logo or just the logo itself. Its going to take me a while to get used to that tail! Its a bit busy to look at for sure. But the website and the new upcoming airport branding look great IMHO.

I personally love the fact that in this new design the American Flag totally covers the back end of the plane. The last thing I want as an American flying in an American Airline is to hide any fact that I'm not proud of my country and my flag. It makes me very happy that they aren't shying away from patriotism.

Even if there wasn't a single precedent of any airline, anywhere putting their country's flag on the tail of their planes, then really, who cares? Get real. I prefer trailblazers and following through in what you believe in. Congratulations American for flying the flag all over the world and not going all politically correct to please an elitist mentality. For that you get all the credit for a great new livery.

It feels contemporary and really rejuvenates the brand through the materials, which was sorely needed so from that aspect I like the rebranding that has been done. Sure the font and design will likely feel dated in the not too distant future, but that's why most brands refresh themselves more often than every four and half decades. That part of it is fine. It seems the problems all arise from two areas: logo and livery.

The logo is an interesting mark that as shown will translate well in many applications, I just wish they'd quit trying to tell me it represents the eagle. If you're going to ditch the eagle then ditch the eagle. That silver gouge in the middle of the logo may be shaped like a beak, but that logo is not an eagle. I have no problem with a company deciding to go a totally different direction, and by itself I think the logo looks just fine, recognizable and inoffensive, but to claim that this logo is an evolution of the brand is a farce.

The livery just feels so off that it took me about 36 hours to start looking at it objectively. Kudos for keeping the silver look even if it is paint, as the polished silver made their aircraft easily identified by even infrequent flyers. Great brand recognition that shouldn't be thrown away. That's about the only thing I like about it.

As many others have said, the tail is jarring. It feels completely disjointed not just from the rest of the airplane, but from the rest of the branding entirely. There's nothing else remotely like anywhere else in the new AA's branding. I showed a photo of the new scheme to a non-aviation geek friend and the first thing they said was "holy crap" followed by "What next? Are they going to paint 'F*** Yeah!' down the side of the plane?" (Team America reference for those that don't get it). I think that just sums up the tail for me. It's over the top. It's too much. I actually like the choice to use the gradients as a flat application would have felt stale while the gradients give a feeling of movement.

The wordmark and logo as applied to the livery are curious, as I don't think I've ever thought billboard titles were understated until this application. The gray on silver 'American' script doesn't have enough contrast to stand out in the middle of the window line. A second issue is that the silver 'beak' of the logo disappears into the silver of the fuselage, leaving a half red half blue hash at the front of the aircraft.

While much of the rebranding was nicely done, I think the logo and livery cause the overall project to just miss the mark.

Time to move on. Some of us love the new branding, most of us hate it. But AA management have made their choice and they are not going to tear it up and start again from scratch, so no point moaning. They could, however, change some of it. Plenty of airlines have refreshed their identities without going back to the drawing board - BA, AF, QF, KL, etc, etc. Mostly they waited years, but AA could make changes much sooner. So what do we think they should do, by way of incremental improvements? The new logo has to stay - like it or not, too embarrassing to change that. Though the mix of red and blue could be reviewed. All red? All blue? The name could be reduced from billboard to something smaller, more self confident - billboard makes sense when you are portraying yourself as the underdog (VS) but that is surely not AA's strategy. But what has to go is the tail. Different shades of red, different shades of blue, everything split both vertically and horizontally, nothing lining up, much too confused. How could they improve the tail? what alternative design for the tail could they adopt that would be in sympathy with the basic approach, but more stylish, less hyper-active?

Is it just me or does anyone think that the reason why they ditched the iconic eagle for a stylised flag with no stars on the tail is to match with US? I mean surely there is a reason why the Eagle is not used anymore. They also haven't used that new 'seagull' logo which is now painted on the front of a plane.

And it's the one thing I'm actually a bit turned off by. Different strokes...

But AA is certainly not the first to do that. JAL had a rising sun on their tails, BA has a Union Jack, Aeroflot has the Russian flag.

The one difference is that these airlines either are or were at one time the official flag carriers of their country, whereas AA is just a private entity that happened to take the name "American". I feel like they don't really have the right to appropriate and commercialize the flag, which belongs to all Americans, for their brand. (I felt the same about US, but they didn't actually incorporate the colors and the flag was smaller, so somehow it felt a bit less "off".)

Then again, in terms of pure design/color/arrangement, I like the new livery.

The tail "emulates" the American flag but doesn't copy it. Official flag etiquette forbids using the Flag as a marketing logo. Not that it hasn't been done by others....

From USFlag.org:
The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. **** Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top. ***
The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.

Quoting QANTASvJet (Reply 17):Time to move on. Some of us love the new branding, most of us hate it.

To the contrary, if the FT blog has any creditability, those who actually voted for liking AA's new branding are in the majority.

More than 50% indicated they liked or are leaning towards liking it. 9% are neutral and the remainder dislike or are leaning towards disliking it.

Considering this is a change to something that has been in place for 45+ years, and further considering that many are resistant to any change, I believe this shows a remarkable vote of confidence for AA's new product!

But you are right. They are not going to change it and its time to move on.

Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 7):Its a paint job on an airplane.. Anyone buying/not buying a ticket because of this reason needs their head examined. I find it amusing at the obsession with a paint scheme. I would imagine a very small percentage of the flying public could acutally tell you the paint job on the last plane they flew.. And if they can, I would imagine none of them bought a ticket because of it.. Please, don't lose any sleep over this tonight!

What a very good point. Sometimes we as humans love to overcomplicate. Whats on the inside of the airplane is far more important then whats on the outside...

"Allow me to qualify my post by saying that I am a C-level marketing executive in a field outside of the airline industry. I do have plenty of experience with branding and design, and corporate communications, as well as corporate strategy.

My impressions as of right now are that the designers of the new branding did a very nice job updating the design and creating the flight symbol. They did mostly an admirable job implementing the brand in the livery.

They did make one HUGE strategic error though, IMO, and AA management and the board must have gone along with it.

Namely the tail design.

The problem with the tail design (forget that many seem to find it ugly) is that it is too literal an adaption of the US Flag / Star Spangled Banner (SSB). While that may play well here at home in the US, it is worth noting that in most of the rest of the developed world, such a brazen display of patriotism is considered crass. It is also worth noting that the US has a less than favorable image in large swaths of the underdeveloped world, and by hitching its proverbial wagon to the SSB, AA will be subject to the fluctuations in the image of the US to a greater degree than its competitors UA and DL.

I am not coming at this purely from a "cultural sensitivity" point of view, but from a revenue POV. AA management, the board, and the agency should have created a brand and livery that allows AA to generate the most revenue possible. While I think they may have succeeded with the brand, I don't think they did with the livery.

Imagine AA flying into the middle east with the new tail design. I believe there may very well be a tangible revenue impact as a result of this livery in that region and others.

None of the other flag carriers I am aware of sport the national flag of their home country as prominently as AA. Certainly not BA or even AF. And those are countries who have a less controversial standing in the world than the US.

Also, the new livery will make it more likely to be targeted for future terrorism attempts IMO.

All in all, it would have served AA better to create a less literal adaptation of the US flag on the tail for the strategic purpose of greater revenue potential. The fact that AA management, board, and agency missed something as basic as this is disconcerting."

Quoting questions (Reply 25):None of the other flag carriers I am aware of sport the national flag of their home country as prominently as AA. Certainly not BA or even AF. And those are countries who have a less controversial standing in the world than the US.

Also, the new livery will make it more likely to be targeted for future terrorism attempts IMO.

Hmm interesting thoughts. I personally don't hold Americans to a different standard in their expression of patriotism than any other similarly large nation. Even in other parts of the world carriers proudly use a version of their flags on their tails (South African, Emirates and Air India to a degree) and I'm not offended by them in any way. Emirates is as bold and with their gold font as in your face "I've got money" as they can be.. Yet, I don' find it crass necessarily if it's done well. Although this may not be the perfect livery by any means (who's is today anyway?) it's still good. American designers have many home grown dynamic symbols to pull from and I'd say let them put it out there. If some regions of the world don't like it I suspect they wouldn't like it even if AA used the grey/cream tailed 77W version as their livery either. They'd hate anything coming from America so you might as well be bold and American as you can and that is what AA's name is all about. It's the 95% of the rest of the world that's going to generate the revenue for them anyhow.

This livery underscores all the bad perceptions of Americans abroad. So much for a global brand.

I would disagree with this.
Most people overseas surprisingly still see the US as a beacon of the world with it's proud history, culture and colors.
It is unfortunate that many of our fellow countrymen have some undesirable streaks of ignorance.
But I don't think at all, that this livery drums up images of that "ugly American."
On the contrary I would say.

It really, really saddens me to read all these U.S.A. apologists on here. Decrying that the use of the American flag on a plane will offend people around the world. If that truly disturbs your globally sophisticated sensibilities, I suggest you take another look at the name of the airline. LOL, I don't think an airline with a name like American can hide the fact that it's AMERICAN. I guess over the past 8 decades it has somehow managed to attract a few flyers who weren't offended by an American brand.

Quoting goldenargosy (Reply 29):It really, really saddens me to read all these U.S.A. apologists on here. Decrying that the use of the American flag on a plane will offend people around the world.

But as aaexecplat said, it will impact revenue. AA is fundamentally a company meant to generate revenue. AA is not a national monument. I agree with the statement that such a brazen degree of patriotism is unwelcoming to passengers who are not American. And we want non-Americans to fly our airlines because it makes us money.

In the service industry, the aim should be to avoid offense, rather than to delight.

I hope that they will pull a BA and keep their brand, but rethink the tail. But while BA needed it to be a bit less worldly and a bit more British, AA erred the other way and needs to make it just a bit less loudly American and just a touch more worldly. If it's a decal, it should be pretty quick, right?

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 22):The impression I get is the branding is a homerun. It's the tail people hate.

Just to add my view, I agree with this, the tail is horrendous, looks like a third grade branding attempt and you all need a Maggie Thatcher to get it changed (although I actually disagreed with her, the BA world tail designs were largely fantastic IMO).

The problem with the tail, aesthetics aside, is it totally abandons the company identity. And because of this I think it's a bad move.

Didn't JAL make a similar decision? - they got ride of the crane, introduced the 'modern' arc of sun logo, and finally had to bring back the crane. I think it was a smart decision to reintroduce the crane. Aesthetically the crane might be considered as outdated according to today's trends, and you don't expect it from a start-up airline, but it's such an iconic logo that everyone grew up with - not only among Japanese, but it's a logo recognized worldwide.

For an airline with such remarkable history, AA shouldn't be only after chasing trends (... and I don't see how this tail is considered trendy. This could've been trendy and funky in the 90s...) Besides, we've seen so many brilliant potential designs here on A.net and it's proof that AA could've modernized their AA logo and eagle without having to get rid of it altogether.

But afterall the crane is now back flying again on JAL tails. We can only hope.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):But as aaexecplat said, it will impact revenue. AA is fundamentally a company meant to generate revenue. AA is not a national monument. I agree with the statement that such a brazen degree of patriotism is unwelcoming to passengers who are not American. And we want non-Americans to fly our airlines because it makes us money.

In the service industry, the aim should be to avoid offense, rather than to delight.

I hope that they will pull a BA and keep their brand, but rethink the tail. But while BA needed it to be a bit less worldly and a bit more British, AA erred the other way and needs to make it just a bit less loudly American and just a touch more worldly. If it's a decal, it should be pretty quick, right?

Very well said, my lovely Doc.

AA has never been the national flag carrier for the US. This in your face attempt is rather crass. Why do so many Canadians have their national flag on their backpacks. Ahem.

Whether you like the Greyhound/US Postal Service logo or not, it certainly would be better on the tail than the chosen stylized US flag. Better yet, dump the tail design and the new logo... keep the new paint scheme... and place the previous AA logo on the tail with a red, white and blue horizontal underscore. Tah dah mate!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
But as aaexecplat said, it will impact revenue. AA is fundamentally a company meant to generate revenue.

1) You don't know that it's going to impact revenue.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31): I agree with the statement that such a brazen degree of patriotism is unwelcoming to passengers who are not American. And we want non-Americans to fly our airlines because it makes us money.

2) I seriously doubt someone who would apparently be so perturbed and off-put by the American flag enough to not fly a specific airline would ever be considering flying an airline named American Airlines in the first place.

3) I really can't see how AA's previously livery was that much less brazen in it's branding in showing that it was American: Flashy planes with bold red, white and blue colors and the American eagle symbol, it was way more American looking and flamboyant with respect to it's national origin than any of it's other US-based competitors.

I think many are going to be pleasantly surprised when they see this livery in the metal rather than on a flat photograph.

I think it's genius, and I'll say again:

My first rection was "wooooah, that's radical."

I must admit, my initial dislike was more to do with the fact I was used to the old livery; it was an AA comfort blanket; solid and reliable, but ever so dull.

Now I've seen more renderings, especially the 77W in a turn, I think it's absolute genius.

I showed just the tail to some colleagues, and every single response was "American."
Now, to be fair, they were meaning American in the generic way and didn't immediately say "American Airlines," but surely that means the livery works if it's recognisable as American?

This livery will be recognised everywhere worldwide as American, and if that is so, then surely it's achieved its purpose ?

The fact that so many American contributors to this forum regard it as "trashy" maybe reflects a dichotomy between Americans' view of what should be seen as American and what non-American folk regard as typically American...

I'll declare my hand as a fan of this new livery. Can't wait to see a row of tails.

Give it a month and we'll have a repeat of the Delta livery change when people started to warm to it as it was rolled out across the network.

I've been reading comments both for and against the new livery. I find the branding clean, modern, and esthetically pleasing... but that tail? American did a much better interpretation with the red, white, and blue cheatline, than this explosion of stripes on the tail. The various gradients of red and blue do look cool..very cool, but WAY too busy.

My only complaint with the "suggestion" of the eagle head in the logo, would be to tweak the blue stripe to show a more literal eyebrow...

Hmmmm . . . . jury's out on this one, as far as I'm concerned. I held-off on commenting the other day to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. I don't dislike it yet, but don't love it either . . . yet. A less obscure eagle would've been nice: it does look like a logo straight out of 1970s I suppose, so Superfly at least should like it.

Unfortunately the quirky shape of the 737 is not the best aircraft to showcase a new livery, so it may have got a more positive reaction had a 777 been painted first (the tail looks wonderfully dramatic in that pic in thread 2) . Put me in the "undecided" camp for the moment.

I absolutely loved the previous AA scheme and logo! It will be well remembered by its fans and the flying public, but for crying out loud, it's 45 years in service! It was time to change, update, modernize. I think it's a job well done! After the facilities, clubs, website, aircraft, and everything else is starting to take form, I think people will love it! Can't wait to see it on the MD80!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):Everyone keeps bringing up a star and I'm just not seeing it. Someone wanna help me out?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):
I don't see it either, but supposedly it's in the negative space if you use the eagle's beak as a reference for one point in the star, then draw the rest of the lines in yourself.

It's there, kind of. I don't know if it was intended or not, but I see it.

Quoting xkorpyoh (Reply 5):1) I like the new logo, but if you ask strangers on the street to identify the company based on the logo they might say: "greyhound"?...then you say: "no, is American Airlines....do you see the Eagle? do you see the "A"? do you see the "star?" ... they will say: "what A? What eagle? what star?"

Perhaps first you should ask them if they see the arrow in the FedEx logo? I see all of those. Even before reading this thread I saw the eagle, the A, and what I thought could be interpreted as a star. Not everyone picks up on negative space images easily, I'll grant you... but they tend to be the types of things that, once seen, are never again missed.

Tail is too simplistic. The logo is not centered. There's too much blue and too little red. Doesn't work at all. Sorry.

I'm glad we don't have the execs from AA relying on these comments. Yes, it doesn't have the eagle or AA on the tail or body of the aircraft, but it does scream "AMERICAN". I don't see what the problem with the tail is, it is an abstract version of the American flag. You have to get over yourselves. I have noticed that the non Americans seem more to liking the new look. The Americans, well, I am not sure what you want, but I think unless you have a crystal ball and can see that the future is clear and due to the new look AA will crash and burn, then unless you are an expert in banding, your comments are really ringing hollow with me.

Non-Americans love the new livery. I've asked many people that don't have a clue about aviation and they all said the new livery was unexpected, but gorgeous. They all said "WOW" when I first brought it out. Anetters had speculated for so long and they feel disappointed. But for the immense majority of Americans, the change was a success.

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 40):Some of you may have seen the ideas I was playing around with in the speculative threads a month or two ago; here's my take on a cleaner look that incorporates the logo into the tail:

It is not very original, logo on fuselage and logo on tail.

The tail is just blue and since that is what people will see first it diminishes the effect of the logo.

In putting the logo on the tail, you also had to omit the "stripes." As a form that is just as important as the triangle or star, the other forms associated with American.

Overall, I don't think the eagle works at that scale. It looks like a partridge. I imagine the designers of the logo (not you) toyed with that idea, but recognized the limitations of their own design, as well as the necessity to do something with the stripes. Your design choices seem driven by pure whim.

Tail is too simplistic. The logo is not centered. There's too much blue and too little red. Doesn't work at all. Sorry.

aI'm glad we don't have the execs from AA relying on these comments. Yes, it doesn't have the eagle or AA on the tail or body of the aircraft, but it does scream "AMERICAN". I don't see what the problem with the tail is, it is an abstract version of the American flag. You have to get over yourselves. I have noticed that the non Americans seem more to liking the new look. The Americans, well, I am not sure what you want, but I think unless you have a crystal ball and can see that the future is clear and due to the new look AA will crash and burn, then unless you are an expert in banding, your comments are really ringing hollow with me.

I think you completely misunderstood AirPacific747's comment.
The "tail is too simplistic comment" refers not to the "stylized American Flag", but to the proposed alternative in Reply 40.

I understand that you require a person to be an expert in branding, to have a crystal ball, and AA to "crash and burn" for his opinion to not "ring hollow."

That is all well and good.

But then this question begs for an answer: What do you have for your opinion to not "ring hollow"?

For those of you who struggle to see a stylized AA in the new logo as I do -- I still can't see it: How many realize that the UA tulip is was actually a stylized U and A? (Only in the slanting left-to-right version.)

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 16):The logo is an interesting mark that as shown will translate well in many applications, I just wish they'd quit trying to tell me it represents the eagle. If you're going to ditch the eagle then ditch the eagle. That silver gouge in the middle of the logo may be shaped like a beak, but that logo is not an eagle. I have no problem with a company deciding to go a totally different direction, and by itself I think the logo looks just fine, recognizable and inoffensive, but to claim that this logo is an evolution of the brand is a farce.

Agree. Most of us may see an eagle because we're all too familiar with AA's identity. Nonetheless, I don't know if a non avgeek would see it. A friend of mine commented that AA took BA's branding and made it appear Americanized. To me, this looks like AA tried to play with BA's speedmarque.

As for the flag, we get it, its American, but as Massimo Vignelli stated in his Bloomberg interview, if AA is going to put the flag on, then they should do it correctly. I think the flag idea's intentions were great, but the execution horrble; not only does the placement of the flag give the impression that the painters ran out of paint, the flag isn't even complete! Also, how will AA use that flag in other branding? The flag doesn't look cohesive.

I love that AA emphasizes the silver, but I think getting rid of the AA on the aircraft is a trAAvesty to AA's history. I can deal with an incomplete and poorly painted flag and an iffy "eagle," but that "AA" needs to be on the airplane.

To say that people are not going to fly AA because of their dislike of the paint scheme has got to be one of the stupidest things ever said on this website. Sorry folks..we're not going to lose money because of this. Just like we didn't MAKE money because of the previous livery.

If that concept were true then Southwest and EasyJet would have gone under years ago

the tail on this livery already looks wind-blown and needs a fresh coat of paint--at least the 738 on a.net looks like it... because of the lame highlights inside of the stripes. anyone ever show the designers an American flag? the blue is not electric and is on the left side not the right. We saw SO many better and more modern liveries. Taking the best case and modifying this livery... put their new Eagle on the tail from top to bottom...the engines and fuselage look like they need something... this livery doesn't set well with me... though I like the direction they are headed in. I am glad they kept the Eagle... I think with the livery the merger with USAirways imminent and this livery proves it.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 63):anyone ever show the designers an American flag? the blue is not electric and is on the left side not the right.

Have you ever seen an American flag? The blue matches what would be expected if it were on a flag pole and the color is not too far off. Obviously it is an interpretation, not a direct match of the flag.

Quoting Polot (Reply 64):By the way- the comments in these threads are quite amusing too, especially almost 6 years later:
Delta's New Livery Is Out (by DAL767400ER Apr 7 2007 in Civil Aviation)
Delta's New Livery Is Out - Part II (by OB1504 Apr 7 2007 in Civil Aviation)

OMG thank you for posting those! I actually remember how that livery was first received on here. We were all SO mean!

Great find! I'm glad to see that my remarks hold up over time. In another thread on the AA livery I stated my lack of fondness for the use of negative space, which is exactly what I said about the Delta livery six years ago.

While I respect Vignelli's previous work, I think it's always a bit odd for the designer of the old logo and livery (one that lasted much longer than he ever would have dreamt) to speak out about a redesign. Of course he's not going to be happy with it, because it replaces his own work.
By the way, I count at least 12 stripes (13 if another gradient on the lower fuselage is taken into account), not 11. So the chapter 11 comment seems like a very cheap shot and a case of sour grapes. Same with his comments about the eagle. Not that I think the number of stripes matters all that much - it's a stylised US flag, after all. And I've never heard anybody complain about US Airways' logo not having the right number of stripes. The point is that both - radically different - approaches are immediately recognisable as referring to the US flag (they obviously are not the flag itself). By the way, just imagine Vignelli's design without the eagle, as he intended - I think the addition of the eagle is a major factor in the livery and logo surviving as long as they did.

I also have no idea what Vignelli means when he says "And there are only two colors shown instead of all three." I do see red, blue and white on the tail.

Funny to see that Vignelli's still such a fan of Helvetica, despite its ubiquitousness nowadays, which I think takes a lot away from Helvetica's impact. Funny, too, that his own design for AA came under heavy criticism back in the 60s for being too stark, too clean, too different. Much like Vignelli now criticises that the new design doesn't adhere to the principles he applied 45 years ago and wanted to be daring and different.

Quoting QANTASvJet (Reply 17):The name could be reduced from billboard to something smaller, more self confident

I actually like the billboard-style they chose. They didn't go for bold, in your-face (think PanAm in the 1980s), but a much thinner look. The choice of colour underlines that - instead of going for a jarring blue, red or even plain black, they used a dark grey - on a light grey/silver fuselage. That's actually a pretty self-confident choice, I think. Sure, they could keep the font style and colour and just have "American" run on top of the window line. Just like Lufthansa, Germanwings, United Airlines, Air France, Swiss, Delta Air Lines, Philippine Airlines, Japan Airlines and countless others.
I'm still very happy they didn't go for that safe route.

I know exactly what you're talking about, but to me, the style of that tail doesn't symbolise that at all; of course, it looks American, but it looks relaxed, open and kind of sexy. Nothing like what you'd find on the back of a Ford F150 with a gun rack, because AA's new tail is too liberal an interpretation of the flag. No stars, many different gradients, possibly not quite the right number of stripes, etc.

Quoting goldenargosy (Reply 29):I don't think an airline with a name like American can hide the fact that it's AMERICAN. I guess over the past 8 decades it has somehow managed to attract a few flyers who weren't offended by an American brand.

Now, by contrast, that is something I wouldn't agree with and that I would actually perceive to fit right in with the "Ugly American" cliché.

Quoting Polot (Reply 58):Probably because melodramatic people can't seem to stop whining about how this a great travesty that will forever ruin their lives so they continue posting to remind us all how much they hate it.

Maybe the admins should open a totally new forum then - alongside "Civil Aviation", "Trip Reports", etc., we'd get "Eternal AA Livery Debate"

Quoting tootallsd (Reply 61):But honestly, it is hard to think of topic that gets approval in these forums. A lot of negative nancies to my opinion.

I think that's the case with many enthusiast communities - they tend to be very change-averse, particularly when it comes to looks. When I was at school, a friend of mine was hugely into railways and he got really upset when Deutsche Bahn changed the livery on their locomotives, whereas I thought the new look (which with minor alterations survives to this day, 26 years later) was great.

by US flag law, the blue field of the US flag should always point forward, that is, the direction of travel or movement, as if the flag was being carried and moving forward. So the orientation of the flag on the tail for direction is correct. Which is why you'll always see the flag next to the reg doing the same thing.

I have no problem with the livery, except that the tail should be completed with the last red stripe that is missing.

why all the comments, when BA already does something similar with their flag, and to a lesser degree, AF, as well as many others?

I'm just a little offended that US patriotism was brought up and considered "crass".

I have to say I saw the livery first and loved the logo, but the tail really gave me pause. After seeing some of the close up photos of the intricate details of the tail, I frankly love it!

The retro aspect to me is the tail. I just think of planes from the '40s and '50s, and one thing is for sure, you won't miss that tail in a crowd. Even though I'm not a fan of American at all (Delta is my carrier of choice), I will say well done!

All of the negative comments remind me of when NW rebranded to the silver scheme, DL to their current scheme and so on. It's a change, but I think in the long run people will love it.

I'm still neutral on the new tail, the rest is fine. I want to see the new paint in the flesh before I make a final judgement. But, bottom line is that as long as they get me from point A to point B reliably, and at a competitive price, it really doesn't matter.

Ill tell you what it doesn't do, it doesn't identify the airline, not that you'd want to really be identified with American anyway. But the point of all that advertising space is to create and identity. What it looks like is Elton John's Piano.

It's hard to imagine after all these years of Business schools and Marketing that all these Geniuses would come up with this mess. It blends in with all the other third world tails and that Family airlines abomination from Las Vegas that never flew a mile. What would be smarter is to adapt US Airway's scheme and go with that because it HAS AN IDENTITY, OR at least drop the tail and use the new logo (identity) across the tail. SOMETHING other than this abortion!

1. He thought the tail looked like the uniform shorts for the Harlem Globetrotters. I pointed out that the Globetrotters have vertical stripes, while the horizontal stripes of the tail look more like the jerseys of the U.S. national soccer team. He agreed.

2. The logo in and of itself isn't bad, but the eagle isn't as recognizable as it is on the old logo. He agreed that the "scissor eagle" that has been featured in every logo from the start of AA was getting a bit dated, but there has to be a design that makes the eagle in some form (perched, soaring, etc.) more prominant.

3. From the tail forward, the plane looks fairly good, although he would have prefered a paint that was a bit more reflective or shinier, to try and keep the look of bare metal. But the tail just looks like an after thought.

I think everyone here, me included had made up their own idea of what WE would have liked for the new livery to be. And of course, when the final product is unveiled.... pronto!!!!! It isnt what we had in mind. So then comes denial and shock over what the livery looks like and what you would have liked it to be. And thats where all the negative comes from. But once again, the livery has been out for 3 days now, and this post is still on the top of the list. Everybody is still talking about it. That's what branding is meant to do. Keep you in people's mouths snd most inportantly, minds.......

Quoting aacun (Reply 80):I think everyone here, me included had made up their own idea of what WE would have liked for the new livery to be. And of course, when the final product is unveiled.... pronto!!!!! It isnt what we had in mind. So then comes denial and shock over what the livery looks like and what you would have liked it to be. And thats where all the negative comes from. But once again, the livery has been out for 3 days now, and this post is still on the top of the list. Everybody is still talking about it. That's what branding is meant to do. Keep you in people's mouths snd most inportantly, minds.......

Well, personally, I'm not of the status quo around here and couldn't care less what any of them do, so the words "WE" and "shock" certainly play no role in my opinion. It's branding that is key here and it's where American sorely missed the mark, actually it's better described and will go down as one of the all time branding blunders in Corporate history and should more than likely NOT survive. We'll see if the little ego behind this mess admits defeat and makes changes before painting 600 airplanes. It's ok, Delta choked its way through 10 years of a decision making disorder to finally land on theirs, and theirs works.

Quoting JohnBecker (Reply 77):It's hard to imagine after all these years of Business schools and Marketing that all these Geniuses would come up with this mess.

Are you yourself someone who has gone through business school and marketing?

Quoting JohnBecker (Reply 81): It's branding that is key here and it's where American sorely missed the mark, actually it's better described and will go down as one of the all time branding blunders in Corporate history and should more than likely NOT survive.

I think that's a little unfair when 99% of the negative comments refer to one specific part of the entire rebranding (the design chosen for the tail). Mostly, the livery forward of the tail, the logo, and the rebranding of the lounges/ menus/ credit cards has been applauded.

I've tried hard to like the tail, but I still find just a bit gaudy for my taste. I may grow to like it in time, but it didn't have the instant 'love it' that the rest of the rebranding has had for me.

I was chatting with a AA pilot today, said the eagle looked more like a Toucon ! I asked what the majority of his co workers thought, they where ok with the logo, not with the tail design . It's just doesn't match.

Quoting tguman (Reply 83):I fail to see how the tail doesn't scream "AMERICAN"

Let me make an observation.

If the new tail design's ultimate marketing objective is to scream "AMERICAN" by closely associating this private-sector airline with the perceived policies and actions of U.S. Government, then it is a success, despite the amateurish execution.

There are a number of fine posts explaining why this tail design does not belong to the rest of the new, otherwise decent livery scheme.

There clearly are people who see the new tail design as fresh and bold, and others who see the same design as crass, juvenile, amateurish, and gaudy.

for those posting about "stats" and whatever, count me out as a naysayer. I like it because of its original and fresh design. But will it make me want to fly AA more? wellll if it gets me on a 77W then MAYBE ....but at the same time I could hop on a 77W on my trips to/from Japan.

Otherwise, unless AA really proves to me that their product is worth spending the money over then maybe.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 86): You don't see Coca-Cola making major changes in its basic logo which still looks much like it did 125 years ago. They changed it for one year (1890-91) and then reverted to the original.

And for the love of god, who cares now? it's a done deal. There's really no use complaining about the logo at this point because for as long as we can conceivably think, this is our AA image.

How about this: in 20 or so years if AA changes its design, some of the A.nutters who only remember this design will begin complaining about the next design as how it doesn't represent the "classic AA."

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 71):I'm just a little offended that US patriotism was brought up and considered "crass".

The way that Americans do it *is* crass and it *is* offense to non-Americans. Not because they hate America, but because even if we are the greatest country in the world (whatever that means), it's simply rude to go around beating our chest about how fantastic we are.

And that is going to turn a lot of non-American passengers off. You do not want to offend people with a commercial livery. Remember, AA is not a national monument; it is an airline based in the USA. Our other flag carriers, including US, invoke the colors and flag of the USA without being so in-your-face about it. Not even Air Force One has such a brazen display of patriotism as part of its livery.

I do agree that there is no accounting for taste, however; I failed to see how that quoted members opinion of the branding

Quoting JohnBecker (Reply 81):actually it's better described and will go down as one of the all time branding blunders in Corporate history

isn't a little bit of a stretch. To say that the member doesn't like the livery is one thing, but to claim an "all time branding blunder" is excessive given the fact that the tail does scream American. Its bold, and its new, it will feel less bold once its seen everywhere.

Quoting tguman (Reply 83):
Quoting JohnBecker (Reply 81):
It's branding that is key here and it's where American sorely missed the mark, actually it's better described and will go down as one of the all time branding blunders in Corporate history and should more than likely NOT survive.

I fail to see how the tail doesn't scream "AMERICAN"[/quote]

The flag doesn't have thirteen stripes and is done in a piano style, it's a hipster look not a patriotic look...and something you'd expect from a domestic budget airline, not a premier international airline.

Another thing the tail is busy and loud. For the former, it's not that easy on the eyes and is expensive, all those different shades of blue and red cost money. For the latter, in this age of terrorism in which we live, a tail that screams "I'm an American (as in United States) plane" from 20 nautical miles out isn't exactly that safe...for the passengers.

There's a difference between being unique on the tarmac and being skeet for Soviet surplus RPG's.

Don't get me completely wrong, as a domestic only "Patriot Air" the tail works, it's just that as a major international airline...they may as well have painted the Southern Cross (Confederate Battle flag) on the tail.

Terrorist are not as stupid as you seem to think they are. They already know what American airlines look like. They don't need the flag wrapped around the tail to suddenly realize it is an American airline.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 92): The flag doesn't have thirteen stripes and is done in a piano style, it's a hipster look not a patriotic look...and something you'd expect from a domestic budget airline, not a premier international airline.

I’m proud of the United States flag, and I don’t have any major concerns about carrying it to any other part of the world, but AA’s new tail appears to me to mock the flag by turning it into a garish caricature of itself. The American flag is already a busy design visually, and its design elements (colors and stars and/or stripes) have been used and misused so often in both advertising and decoration, that it’s very easy to turn into a cartoon when the designers play with proportion and orientation.

My two small suggestions that I think would make a world of difference:
1) Extend the red underneath the fuselage in the tail area so that it would have a slightly more curved appearance instead of being so angular, pyramidal, and chopped-off. AND/OR
2) Have the blue field (with the current stripes) extend from the front of the vertical stabilizer all the way aft, but only over the top 30% or so of the tail. The current style red and white stripes would occupy the area below the blue field.

Signed! Just putting my two cents in the unimpressed/disappointed camp. I think the new website is refreshingly modern and well done. The logo itself is okay, I think: it harkens back to old with a bit of "Air France" splashed in, not sure if that's a good thing or not.....the font is a bit boring, but okay again. However the tail I find to be absolutely atrocious - sure it screams "American" - but in the loudest, garish, most gaudy sense of the word. Its tacky-American at its worst. Not a good thing in my book... a bit like driving a Dodge Challenger around Europe...

Can you imagine what the world will look like if every logo, design, paint scheme must pass a Facebook "like" criteria. Some people have no taste, some have no adventure, some want change daily, and some companies really don't care ...

the point was we went through 1000 posts fretting what was coming and we're near 500 and growing bemoaning what we got. nothing will change and I doubt anyone's love life will be seriously disrupted. There are bigger issues in the world than whether the new eagle looks like a toucan or a raptor..

It may look different on the real aircraft, but from some of the photos I've seen there doesn't seem to be much contrast between the white outlines around the doors and emergency exits and the painted fuselage. Seems like that could possibly be a safety issue as if not mistaken those outlines are supposed to be readily visible for rescue personnel etc. Not sure what the regulations say about that.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 97):It may look different on the real aircraft, but from some of the photos I've seen there doesn't seem to be much contrast between the white outlines around the doors and emergency exits and the painted fuselage. Seems like that could possibly be a safety issue as if not mistaken those outlines are supposed to be readily visible for rescue personnel etc. Not sure what the regulations say about that.

One example:

Interesting to what lengths people with a dislike of the new livery will go to try and discredit it. No, it's not just ugly, it's a safety hazard; never mind that if door frames were a problem, the choice of colour for them would be really easy to change without making any other changes whatsoever.

Firstly, I think that any part of the colour scheme that is subject to laws and regulations will have been approved beforehand. Given that fact alone, I think this is a moot point, never mind that as I said even if anything was wrong with the contrast from a regulator's point, it would be very easy to change anyway.
Secondly, I think that this particular photo isn't a great one to judge contrast by, as the plane is in a hangar with a few kilowatts' worth of bright lights shining at it. The fuselage looks almost white in this photo. Compare that with this photohttp://www.airliners.net/photo/Ameri...n-Airlines/Boeing-737-823/2214581/
in natural light where the door outlines are much more clearly visible. Certainly better than on the UA 787s, which incidentally seem to use the same colours as AA, but inverted, i.e. door frame light grey on white fuselage.http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unite...s/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/2213241/

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 88):And for the love of god, who cares now? it's a done deal. There's really no use complaining about the logo at this point because for as long as we can conceivably think, this is our AA image.

How about this: in 20 or so years if AA changes its design, some of the A.nutters who only remember this design will begin complaining about the next design as how it doesn't represent the "classic AA."

The tail was shocking at first. It grew on me rapidly. The highlights on the stripes are very nice.
The new logo is outstanding. Very clever.
Yes, I have taste. I have a good sense of graphic design.

Re: over-patriotic livery? I would not describe myself as a flag-waving patriot, and I am sensitive to the overt-American syndrome. That said, I don't think this livery is a big deal. It's a stylized flag, not much different than what US uses. It's red white and blue, like 2/3 of the national flags of the planet. It's American Airlines, which we knew already. I don't/didn't see a lot of hysteria over British Airways, Aeroflot, Air France, South African, Air Canada etc. incorporating flag motifs into their livery. There seems to be undue consternation from some of the Australian A.net contingent. Ansett, anyone?

But, as liveries attain nicknames, even good ones, like NW "Bowling Shoe", DL "Deltaflot" and "Wavy Gravy", BN "Easter Eggs", EA "Hockeystick", and AF "Barcode", this new AA will go down as...
"CubAAna de Aviacion".
But I still like it.

Of course there are bigger issues and I don't see anyone here denying that? But this is a fan site for airlines and aircraft so it's inevitable people will want to discuss a new livery for one of the world's biggest airlines, no?

And no-one suggested putting anything to a democratic FB-like test, but it seems to me that a company's branding ought to connect with the end user - turning your customers off would seem to me to be a tad counter productive.

Quoting JohnBecker (Reply 77):Ill tell you what it doesn't do, it doesn't identify the airline, not that you'd want to really be identified with American anyway. But the point of all that advertising space is to create and identity. What it looks like is Elton John's Piano.

That's the problem with planes that are a solid color. I remember after DL went to wavy gravy. I saw a DL plane with the jet bridge at L2 (either 757 or 764). The jet bridge obstructed the word Delta and the widget. So, it was the cream fuselage and the wavy gravy tail. If you didn't know that wavy gravy was DL, you had no idea who the plane belonged to.

When NW had the plain red tail (no logo or "Northwest" on the tail), if you weren't familar with a red tail being Northwest, then you might wonder whose plane it was.

If you know that AA has had silver airplanes for decades, and then you will recognize an AA plane just by the silver/gray paint.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 86):You don't see Coca-Cola making major changes in its basic logo which still looks much like it did 125 years ago. They changed it for one year (1890-91) and then reverted to the original.

But, how many times has the look of the can been changed? A lot, particularly the Diet Coke can. And while Coke doesn't change it's logo, Pepsi has gone through a number of logo changes.

Even though Chevy has kept the bow tie, it has been changed a number of times. The proportions have changed slightly. The color has changed. I've seen the bow tie in gold, silver, blue, and a red outline.

What a massive disappointment. They could have gone with something new and innovative, but they didn't even change the colour of the fuselage. Worse yet, they introduced a logo that is best described as "Americana":

and followed Delta down the "our ego logo just won't fit on the tail anymore" road. To top it off, they dropped their iconic eagle for one of the worst stylisations of the American flag to ever disgrace an aircraft... and that's quite a feat considering how beautiful that flag is.

Quoting aloges (Reply 102):What a massive disappointment. They could have gone with something new and innovative, but they didn't even change the colour of the fuselage. Worse yet, they introduced a logo that is best described as "Americana":

I don't dispute the need to change the livery or the brand, but I agree with you that this livery is disappointing. The "scissor eagle" was a bit dated, but I would have tried something with an eagle that was soaring.

What really disappointed me was some rumors that the livery was going to be retro in nature. I was expecting some sort of sylized lightning bolt on the side of the plane, reminding people of the 1960s, when AA was among the first airlines to offer jet service.

My wife and I like to watch the television show "Fashion Police" wherein Joan Rivers and her fellow cast mates comment on celebrity fashion. Often Joan and the crew do not object to what a celebrity is wearing as much as they think it was wrong in light of the occasion to which it was worn.

Likewise with the new American Airlines livery. I personally don't care for it, but I might like it better if it were applied to something other than a commercial passenger airline. Airlines and agencies on which it might be more appropriate and therefore look better include:

• The United States Postal Service
• A nonscheduled airline running sports charters
• The federal agency transporting prisoners
• A freight airline
• Air force jets carrying civilians and elected government officials

Somehow I think I would like the livery better in these contexts than on a passenger airline.

Quoting aloges (Reply 102):Worse yet, they introduced a logo that is best described as "Americana":

Like a lot of others, I liked the logo (just not the tail). Then last night I was reading another forum where someone compared the logo to a bathroom faucet handle, with the blue for cold/red for hot. That's going to be hard to get out of my mind—every time I see the logo, now I see a faucet handle.

I personally applaud the American Airlines management's gutsy and refreshingly unexpected decision to put American Flag on the tail, thus aggressively going after the same demographics as the unlamented Family Airlines of yore:

The last time I felt this much impact from a product design was when I saw a Pontiac Aztec for the first time.

Quoting YYZBound (Reply 59):To say that people are not going to fly AA because of their dislike of the paint scheme has got to be one of the stupidest things ever said on this website. Sorry folks..we're not going to lose money because of this. Just like we didn't MAKE money because of the previous livery.

Then why bother changing? Why not just paint the plains in a metallic silver scheme rather than bare metal? If it's not going to make you money, but it doesn't lose you money, how do you justify a business decision like this, especially in the midst of bankrupcy?

I don't actually believe that an image has zero revenue impact - I believe it does, which is why livery and logo changes occur. But if you;re going to argue that it is, effectively revenue neutral, then you have to justify why the change (and expense) is necessary.

After several days, I must say I have already grown to really, really like the new livery. Everything about this re-brand is fantastic. I still wish the plane was more silvery, as it does look rather gray in person in all but the sunniest of light. And I say this as someone who loves AA and initially almost cried when I saw the new livery.

Quoting combatshadow (Reply 71):by US flag law, the blue field of the US flag should always point forward, that is, the direction of travel or movement, as if the flag was being carried and moving forward. So the orientation of the flag on the tail for direction is correct. Which is why you'll always see the flag next to the reg doing the same thing.

Technically the Flag Code is not law, in the enforceable sense. It is a guideline that even the US Government fails to follow properly in a lot of circumstances.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 86):You don't see Coca-Cola making major changes in its basic logo which still looks much like it did 125 years ago.

You don't see Coca-Cola having a reputation problem that necessitates a logo change, either.

Quoting FSXJunkie (Reply 92):The flag doesn't have thirteen stripes and is done in a piano style, it's a hipster look not a patriotic look...and something you'd expect from a domestic budget airline, not a premier international airline.

Ever counted the number of stripes in US Airways' logo?

Quoting PennStation (Reply 94):My two small suggestions that I think would make a world of difference:
1) Extend the red underneath the fuselage in the tail area so that it would have a slightly more curved appearance instead of being so angular, pyramidal, and chopped-off.AND/OR
2) Have the blue field (with the current stripes) extend from the front of the vertical stabilizer all the way aft, but only over the top 30% or so of the tail. The current style red and white stripes would occupy the area below the blue field.

Those might help. Or they could drop the stripes from the blue field...

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 97):It may look different on the real aircraft, but from some of the photos I've seen there doesn't seem to be much contrast between the white outlines around the doors and emergency exits and the painted fuselage. Seems like that could possibly be a safety issue as if not mistaken those outlines are supposed to be readily visible for rescue personnel etc. Not sure what the regulations say about that.

When an aircraft crashes in a hangar with halogen lighting beaming down on the rescue crews, we'll worry about that.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 98):Secondly, I think that this particular photo isn't a great one to judge contrast by, as the plane is in a hangar with a few kilowatts' worth of bright lights shining at it. The fuselage looks almost white in this photo. Compare that with this photo

Quoting ckfred (Reply 101):But, how many times has the look of the can been changed? A lot, particularly the Diet Coke can. And while Coke doesn't change it's logo, Pepsi has gone through a number of logo changes.

Well, for a great many years (nowhere near as long as Coke) Pepsi changed the can and associated artwork every few years, but the logo itself remained unchanged. It's their word mark that's changed drastically often.

"A designer can only be as good as their clients, therefore the new American Airlines Identity doesn't surprise me much," he says. "Clients without [a] sense of history, could not understand the value of equity.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 113):After several days, I must say I have already grown to really, really like the new livery. Everything about this re-brand is fantastic.

I must say I'm feeling the same way. The initial shock - which was, for me like for many, inevitable no matter what the new brand and livery was - has worn off. And after several days of reflection, the tail (which was the only part of this new branding and livery) has grown on me. Looking at some of the high-res renderings and promo photos of it, plus the photos posted here of the 737 landing at DFW, it doesn't look nearly as bad as I first imagined it. I will still reserve final judgement until I see it in person (which I will hopefully do soon) but I think it's something I can live with.

I definitely do agree with what many others have said that this livery is not going to be as 'timeless' as the previous one, which I truly did love and thought could have gone on for years, but now I don't think it's as bad as horrific here are suggesting.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 115):Massimo Vignelli, who created the airline's previous classic identity which endured for over 40 years, doesn't like it.

"A designer can only be as good as their clients, therefore the new American Airlines Identity doesn't surprise me much," he says. "Clients without [a] sense of history, could not understand the value of equity.

I am as sad as anyone else to see the previous brand and livery go. The thought that at some point in the not-too-distant future I will be at a major airport on a sunny day and not see a piece of shiny bare aluminum reflecting back at me, punctuating by little beyond a red, white and blue stripe, does truly sadden me. I have long thought, continue to think, and will continue to think, that it was classic and timeless and truly an inspired, iconic brand.

Nonetheless, and with no disrespect to Mr. Vignelli, what did you expect him to say? He created one of the most iconic - and ultimately longest-lived - brands in modern corporate America. Surely, in the scheme of things, one of the most impressive achievements in 20th century advertising and design. And now, after 45 years, the brand he so famously (and triumphantly) created is changing. Whether his veiled criticism of AA management or philosophizing on Corporate America's apparent lack of appreciation for history is right or wrong, it's hardly surprising that he wouldn't like the brand changing.

I am really, really surprised more of you don't see what I see as the inspiration scheme for this branding, and this photo really brings it home for me, both the tail and the new logo, take a look ! You need to open this picture to full size on an actual computer screen, not a phone or a tablet and you will see it and this is not a plug for this great photo, I do not know the photag.

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 100):And no-one suggested putting anything to a democratic FB-like test, but it seems to me that a company's branding ought to connect with the end user - turning your customers off would seem to me to be a tad counter productive.

The only people I've come across who have negative expressions about the tail are all on Anet and other airline fan-sites.
When I posted the video on my own FB page, many of my friends thought it was cool but still refused to fly AA because they "think" AA is TOO EXPENSIVE.

The "regular" people still care about price and really don't care what the plane looks like as long as it's not dirty or broken looking.
Otherwise, I think this livery very much passes the "mob" test.
It makes the airline look sleek, modern and contemporary, and if that gets people to think about it differently, than its old, dirty image.
Well........mission accomplished

Quoting LGA777 (Reply 119):I am really, really surprised more of you don't see what I see as the inspiration scheme for this branding, and this photo really brings it home for me, both the tail and the new logo, take a look ! You need to open this picture to full size on an actual computer screen, not a phone or a tablet and you will see it and this is not a plug for this great photo, I do not know the photag.

Funny enough, when I showed my wife the new AA branding her first response was "Looks like BA".

Quoting LGA777 (Reply 119):I am really, really surprised more of you don't see what I see as the inspiration scheme for this branding, and this photo really brings it home for me, both the tail and the new logo, take a look ! You need to open this picture to full size on an actual computer screen, not a phone or a tablet and you will see it and this is not a plug for this great photo, I do not know the photag.

Quoting LGA777 (Reply 117):I am really, really surprised more of you don't see what I see as the inspiration scheme for this branding, and this photo really brings it home for me, both the tail and the new logo, take a look !

That was my first thought too . . . even down to the white areas on the stripes, similar to the white/halftone areas on BA.

I said last week I'd wait to see if it grew on me, and I saw a pic of two (Photoshopped?) 777 tails together yesterday and I thought WOW! They looked great! What's nice about the tail is that it has a slight retro look, without being retro. I really think this will be a winner, although I'm not so sure about the eagle.

I had the opportunity to see 3JT in person this afternoon when she was on display for AA employees at MIA. I'll admit that I wasn't the biggest fan of the flag design on the tail, but it slowly grew on me, and seeing it up close and personal was a breathtaking experience.

I was just watching the rebranding video and noticed that they completely painted a retired 757 at ROW in the new colors and rolled it out without ever being spotted. I am sure they pulled it right back in the hanger and probably painted over it promptly. N670AA is now retired at ROW but it was the test aircraft for the new livery.

Quoting commavia (Reply 114):Nonetheless, and with no disrespect to Mr. Vignelli, what did you expect him to say? He created one of the most iconic - and ultimately longest-lived - brands in modern corporate America. Surely, in the scheme of things, one of the most impressive achievements in 20th century advertising and design. And now, after 45 years, the brand he so famously (and triumphantly) created is changing. Whether his veiled criticism of AA management or philosophizing on Corporate America's apparent lack of appreciation for history is right or wrong, it's hardly surprising that he wouldn't like the brand changing.

Of course, Mr. Vignelli originally had the double A without the eagle. The employees were upset by the removal of the eagle and got passengers to send letters of complaint to HQ in New York. Management told Mr. Vignelli to put an eagle on the logo. From what I understand, Mr, Vignelli wasn't happy with customers and senior management trying to tell him how to design a brand.

So, I think he's being a bit hypocritical in criticizing the the new branding, considering that he tried to get rid of the eagle completely.

Quoting rampart (Reply 121):Quoting ckfred (Reply 103):The "scissor eagle" was a bit dated, but I would have tried something with an eagle that was soaring.

I see the eagle is soaring, recognized it right off. That's the parallelogram wings on either side of the head.

I was thinking something less stylized, and still with the double A, since American uses the double A so much (AAdvantage, PlanAAhead ,etc.)

Quote:When we originally designed the logo, I designed without the eagle. They wanted an eagle. I said, “If you want an eagle, it has to have every feather.” You don’t stylize and make a cartoon out of an eagle. Somebody else did the eagle, by the way.

You didn’t design American’s original eagle between the “AA”?

I refused to do it. We started without it, and the pilots threatened to go on strike because they wanted the eagle on American Airlines. There’s always been the eagle. But I wanted the eagle to be real. As a matter of fact, the post office eagle, I think, is terrific. If you do an eagle, do an eagle with the dignity of an eagle. Don’t make Mickey Mouse out of an eagle. That was my theory at the time. The office of Henry Dreyfuss did the eagle.

Coming to think of it, it wouldn't be bad in my opinion to have the "AA" letters on the tail in bold with the same color as the new fuselage title has and with the new eagle between the "AA" tail logo, also in the same dark grey color as the new fuselage title has.

Quoting A388 (Reply 132):Coming to think of it, it wouldn't be bad in my opinion to have the "AA" letters on the tail in bold with the same color as the new fuselage title has and with the new eagle between the "AA" tail logo, also in the same dark grey color as the new fuselage title has.

A388

What do you think of this?
Sorry it's kinda rough, I did it in Paint while at work.

I love how you put the eagle on the tail, but for me, the issue with the AA livery is the tail seems too busy, and with the flag, this tail seems to busy. I think an enlarged stylized eagle (like the Delta widget) would look great.

Why is at JFK for so long? And with gate space at JFK, has it been at the gate this whole time or in long term parking? They probably want to show off the tail, but making an entire gate inactive for 1-2 days doesn't seem smart.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 129):Quoting commavia (Reply 114):
Nonetheless, and with no disrespect to Mr. Vignelli, what did you expect him to say? He created one of the most iconic - and ultimately longest-lived - brands in modern corporate America. Surely, in the scheme of things, one of the most impressive achievements in 20th century advertising and design. And now, after 45 years, the brand he so famously (and triumphantly) created is changing. Whether his veiled criticism of AA management or philosophizing on Corporate America's apparent lack of appreciation for history is right or wrong, it's hardly surprising that he wouldn't like the brand changing.

Of course, Mr. Vignelli originally had the double A without the eagle. The employees were upset by the removal of the eagle and got passengers to send letters of complaint to HQ in New York. Management told Mr. Vignelli to put an eagle on the logo. From what I understand, Mr, Vignelli wasn't happy with customers and senior management trying to tell him how to design a brand.

The first AA aircraft in the 1968 livery, 720B N7528A, at LAX August 1968, before the eagle was added. Previous tail livery on the 707 at right.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 135):Why is at JFK for so long? And with gate space at JFK, has it been at the gate this whole time or in long term parking? They probably want to show off the tail, but making an entire gate inactive for 1-2 days doesn't seem smart.

Guess going around to cities with lots of employees to let them see it , just headed to LGA

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 136):The first AA aircraft in the 1968 livery, 720B N7528A, at LAX August 1968, before the eagle was added. Previous tail livery on the 707 at right.

I think that photo supports an opinion I expressed previously - that the 1968 livery would definitely not have survived if it hadn't been for the added eagle that Vignelli detested.
Vignelli's design was great - but I think without the eagle it was just too pure. The eagle gave it some character.

Nice photos - that close-up of the tail may endear it to some that didn't like it at first. I like it more now after seeing that shot. I am one of the apparent minority that likes the new livery and these photos make me like it even more.

Put me in the group who like the new scheme minus the tail...but I think its starting to grown on me...I saw a pic of the new Ejets on order with republic in the new scheme and actually kinda liked it. We waited forever for this livery to come out and now that it has, hopefully we will learn of the merger plans soon, the suspense is killing me, lol

I went out to LGA yesterday to see the new livery in person. I took a walk on the tarmac for a closer look and I have to say, it does look better in person. And I know I'll get attacked for this, but the 737s taxiing by in the previous livery kind of looked a bit bland in comparison to the new.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 135):Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 134):
What do you think of this?

I love how you put the eagle on the tail, but for me, the issue with the AA livery is the tail seems too busy, and with the flag, this tail seems to busy. I think an enlarged stylized eagle (like the Delta widget) would look great.

Yeah.....I tried to keep a little bit of a flag aspect, but perhaps it's too busy.

Quoting A388 (Reply 140):It looks good but I would still prefer what I said earlier, the "AA" letters on the tail in the same colors and font as the fuselage titles but with the new eagle logo between the two AA's.

A388

I tried that, but it seemed like the logo would be too small with the lack of real estate on the tail to wedge it between the AA.
If anyone else figures it out, cool, let's see.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 152):I tried that, but it seemed like the logo would be too small with the lack of real estate on the tail to wedge it between the AA.
If anyone else figures it out, cool, let's see.

I actually mean that the "AA" titles on the tail being the same size as on the current/old livery.

The gradient is such, that you couldn't paint those dots. The idea of the flag tail is great...its just the execution used is way too busy. Tone it down, and it could actually be a long-lasting design!

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 157):The great news about the tail, is that it can easily be changed...just strip off the decal:

Hate to say it, but that's probably painted on. They probably start with a navy blue undercoat and then adhere a vinyl decal to the tail that acts as a stencil for the patterm of lighter blue dots. Peel off the decal and voila!

I was watching a cable news channel last night and saw a different AA commerical than the one that has been running recently. This had the 777-300 taxiing and then taking off. (Can't tell if this is computer generated or one of the two 773s recently painted at VCV.

Anyway, I've noticed that the ground vehicles in the commercial are silver/gray, rather than blue. This leads me to believe that AA is going to repaint ground vehicles in a similar color to the aircraft.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 158):Anyway, I've noticed that the ground vehicles in the commercial are silver/gray, rather than blue. This leads me to believe that AA is going to repaint ground vehicles in a similar color to the aircraft.

The only airline I've ever seen make a concerted effort to rebrand GSE is Delta... and even there, I have only one station to go by. But, it wouldn't surprise me if any new vehicles from here out are a color similar to the aircraft.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.